The militants arrested in Germany in an al Qaeda terror plot were given a September 15th deadline to carry out their attack, reports Erik Kirschbaum in Germany for Reuters:
Three suspected Islamist militants who were planning to attack American targets in Germany had orders to act by September 15 and knew police were hot on their trail before their arrest, a magazine said on Saturday.
The plan was foiled on Tuesday when police arrested two German converts to Islam and a Turk in the biggest German police investigation in the last 30 years.According to surveillance details published in Der Spiegel magazine, the men had been given a two-week deadline for their planned strikes in a late August call from northern Pakistan that was monitored by German police.
Read the rest at the above link. Their attack was supposed to come as the President's progress report to Congress on Iraq was due, and shortly after bin Laden's latest video.
Naturally, the sort of surveillance which led to these arrests is precisely that many Democrats want ended. I suspect bin Laden would like to see it ended, too.
Comments (73)
Dems, Terrorists and Jihadi... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Justrand | September 8, 2007 2:44 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Dems, Terrorists and Jihadi masterminds all with similar aims and timeframes!
It's not your Grandfather's Democrat Party, that's for sure!
1. Posted by Justrand | September 8, 2007 2:44 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 14:44
2. Posted by pudge | September 8, 2007 2:57 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Kill - the - U-S-A
Vote for dems, ev'ry day,
HEY HEY, D - N - C,
How many fingers do you see?
That - we - flip at you,
As liberty, you screw and screw
HEY HEY - Wed the "gay",
Just don't defend - the U S A,
Alien, killers too,
Need the rights - they get from you
Hey - A - CLU,
Child preds are safe with you,
And - the - leftists say,
"It's 'for the kids', we act this way"
And the liberal congregation said, "If Christians weren't such a bunch of dangerous fanatics we would say, 'Aaaa-mennn!'."
2. Posted by pudge | September 8, 2007 2:57 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 14:57
3. Posted by cirby | September 8, 2007 3:02 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
They missed the deadline?
Damn- now they're going to have to hire some management consultants or something.
3. Posted by cirby | September 8, 2007 3:02 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 15:02
4. Posted by jim | September 8, 2007 3:20 PM | Score: -5 (9 votes cast)
Wow, hey look at that - they caught terrorists using proven police methods.
Stupid Germans. What are they thinking? Don't they know they should just invade a country that isn't involved instead?
And, just so we're totally clear: there's NOTHING in the Reuters article that says anything about the surveillance that caught these creeps, being in ANY WAY based on warrantless wiretapping, or torture, or anything beyond good, solid police work.
So this line in the article:
- is completely and totally baseless.
Just so you know.
4. Posted by jim | September 8, 2007 3:20 PM |
Score: -5 (9 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 15:20
5. Posted by kim | September 8, 2007 3:47 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
jim, reports of emails given to the Germans, probably caught through NSA type surveillance. Note the timing to support the Lose the Warriors?
====================================
5. Posted by kim | September 8, 2007 3:47 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 15:47
6. Posted by Justrand | September 8, 2007 3:47 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
jim, the methods used by OUR government to alert the Germans to the threat in THEIR country are exactly the methods the Far Left wants stopped. And since the Far Left is calling the shots in the Democrat Party these days your comment is completely baseless.
6. Posted by Justrand | September 8, 2007 3:47 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 15:47
7. Posted by kim | September 8, 2007 3:52 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
What you call 'good old fashioned police work' covered a multitude of sins in the old days. The task had fallen to bureaucrats and your ken of it to novelists by the time your constabulary sensibilities were formed, but what you consider effective doesn't begin to cut it, anymore, foge.
Can you explain all those sites going off the air virtually simultaneously? Huh?
========================
7. Posted by kim | September 8, 2007 3:52 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 15:52
8. Posted by kim | September 8, 2007 3:55 PM | Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
jim, from his high falutin place of ignorant honor, is happy to declaim about 'completely and totally baseless'. What he don't know about baseless.
========================
8. Posted by kim | September 8, 2007 3:55 PM |
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 15:55
9. Posted by kim | September 8, 2007 4:02 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
OK, now I've read this article. The suspect were either tremendously stupid or tremendously desperate if they persisted with planning despite knowledge of police surveillance.
The big boys would like to know why they slash tire with impunity and still talk to the other 79 suspects. bin Laden is shaking his long black beard, 'With help like this, how can you get anything done, anymore? And they blame me.'
====================================
9. Posted by kim | September 8, 2007 4:02 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 16:02
10. Posted by Semanticleo | September 8, 2007 4:23 PM | Score: -2 (10 votes cast)
"Naturally, the sort of surveillance which led to these arrests is precisely that many Democrats want ended"
What is your evidence 1) 'sort of surveillance'
2) Dems 'want ended' (sic)?.
Law enforcement is the method preferred by upholders of Habeus Corpus. Whose ox is being gored by this post?
10. Posted by Semanticleo | September 8, 2007 4:23 PM |
Score: -2 (10 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 16:23
11. Posted by Ted | September 8, 2007 4:30 PM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
It's not law enforcement against criminals. It's defense against a wartime enemy.
11. Posted by Ted | September 8, 2007 4:30 PM |
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 16:30
12. Posted by jim | September 8, 2007 4:45 PM | Score: -4 (8 votes cast)
Kim and Justrand - please list exactly what methods these are, that you guys are saying Democrats are against and want forbidden.
Because I read the Reuters article that was linked to, and saw nothing about any methods that fit this description.
Which makes it a baseless accusation, by definition.
12. Posted by jim | September 8, 2007 4:45 PM |
Score: -4 (8 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 16:45
13. Posted by Paul | September 8, 2007 5:08 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Jim, I have a silly little question....
You guys on the left keep saying that we should not treat terrorism as a military battle but a law enforcement battle....
But in the next breath you guys blame Bush for not killing bin Laden.
Can you tell me how this are both genuinely held beliefs and not partisan dumbshit talking points?
13. Posted by Paul | September 8, 2007 5:08 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 17:08
14. Posted by Semanticleo | September 8, 2007 5:18 PM | Score: -7 (7 votes cast)
"Can you tell me how this are both genuinely held beliefs and not partisan dumbshit talking points?"
For a mind-numbingly stupid parrot, you ask questions I would expect from someone recently gut-shot. Are you in pain?
14. Posted by Semanticleo | September 8, 2007 5:18 PM |
Score: -7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 17:18
15. Posted by Paul | September 8, 2007 5:19 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
And Jim, silly question number two...
The liberals always bash Bush for his "cowboy go it alone military first" ways... Yet when Bush worked with the Northern Alliance and the locals in Afghanistan rather than invading or bombing Tora Bora ourselves, Liberals whine that we "outsourced" the killing of bin Laden.
Can you tell me how this are both genuinely held beliefs and not partisan dumbshit talking points?
15. Posted by Paul | September 8, 2007 5:19 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 17:19
16. Posted by Paul | September 8, 2007 5:21 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
And Jim... I also have silly question number 3...
For days now, the liberals have been wailing that Bush hasn't killed bin Laden... YET none of them blame Clinton for not taking bin Laden when he was offered to the U.S. not 1 not 2 but 3 times.
Can you tell me how this are both genuinely held beliefs and not partisan dumbshit talking points?
16. Posted by Paul | September 8, 2007 5:21 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 17:21
17. Posted by Paul | September 8, 2007 5:22 PM | Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
ok... we know Semanticleo can't answer the question... anyone else?
17. Posted by Paul | September 8, 2007 5:22 PM |
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 17:22
18. Posted by HughS | September 8, 2007 5:37 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
For a mind-numbingly stupid parrot, you ask questions I would expect from someone recently gut-shot.
Cleo....you drag your past in here every time and attempt to dispense snark all the while assuming no one remembers your mind-numbingly stupid appearances elsewhere.
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/07/12/on-getting-screwed/
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/03/tony-blair-mentions-god.html
http://patterico.com/2007/08/01/ive-wanted-to-post-this-syllogism-since-clyburns-statement/
Go away, you fool.
18. Posted by HughS | September 8, 2007 5:37 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 17:37
19. Posted by Semanticleo | September 8, 2007 5:40 PM | Score: -7 (7 votes cast)
".you drag your past in here every time and attempt to dispense snark all the while assuming no one remembers your mind-numbingly stupid appearances elsewhere."
Speaking of parrots. Wanna cracker?
19. Posted by Semanticleo | September 8, 2007 5:40 PM |
Score: -7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 17:40
20. Posted by marc | September 8, 2007 5:45 PM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Jim:
And, just so we're totally clear: there's NOTHING in the Reuters article that says anything about the surveillance that caught these creeps, being in ANY WAY based on warrantless wiretapping, or torture, or anything beyond good, solid police work.
Guess you missed this part
Jim... don't look now but your ass is showing.Your assertion the U.S. intel services didn't hav a hand in uncovering this plot is "completely and totally baseless."
"Just so you know."
20. Posted by marc | September 8, 2007 5:45 PM |
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 17:45
21. Posted by HughS | September 8, 2007 5:52 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Speaking of parrots. Wanna cracker?...no thanks, althouse and patterico said not to accept food from fools.
21. Posted by HughS | September 8, 2007 5:52 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 17:52
22. Posted by marc | September 8, 2007 5:54 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Jim:
Because I read the Reuters article that was linked to, and saw nothing about any methods that fit this description.
Let's assume for the sake of argument your correct, no NSA program or other programs used by intel services were used.
Then how DID U.S. sources intercept these emails from Pakistan and alert German authorities?
22. Posted by marc | September 8, 2007 5:54 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 17:54
23. Posted by marc | September 8, 2007 5:57 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
semanticleo:
Are you in pain?
YES! Every time you show up in a thread and contribute nothing.
23. Posted by marc | September 8, 2007 5:57 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 17:57
24. Posted by Semanticleo | September 8, 2007 6:01 PM | Score: -7 (7 votes cast)
"Every time you show up in a thread and contribute nothing."
They say being gut-shot is the most painful of all wounds. Sorry for your pain.
24. Posted by Semanticleo | September 8, 2007 6:01 PM |
Score: -7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 18:01
25. Posted by marc | September 8, 2007 6:05 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
semanticleo - so contribute something.
Maybe you can answer the question posed to Jim.
Just how did U.S. authorities intercept emails from Pakistan without the use of the Terrorist Surveillance program or other intel sources?
Can I continue my normal respiration rate while I wait? (as opposed to holding my breath)
25. Posted by marc | September 8, 2007 6:05 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 18:05
26. Posted by Semanticleo | September 8, 2007 6:12 PM | Score: -6 (6 votes cast)
"Just how did U.S. authorities intercept emails from Pakistan without the use of the Terrorist Surveillance program or other intel sources?"
Neither I, or you or the talking parrots have any idea, because that is a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY, and must remain on secret-double probation. But it really doesn't matter, to you folks, how they got the information, does it?
26. Posted by Semanticleo | September 8, 2007 6:12 PM |
Score: -6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 18:12
27. Posted by Scrapiron | September 8, 2007 6:15 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Never argue with anyone that enters the battle of wits, unarmed. Semanticleo and Jim didn't realize they needed to know what they were talking about. They deal with democrats on a daily basis and all are on the same level of stupid. Just repeat after me 'I never had sex with that woman'. S Starts at the top and flows downhill, one of the major things a plumber needs to know. I had already read on several sources that the U.S. provided the Germans with the EMails that got them on track. Hard day to day police work did the rest. Semanticleo and Jim evidently only read the propaganda at KOS/DU and make fools of themselves daily by parroting the left wing Democrat/Communist garbage. Do the DNC talking heads use Osama's talking points of is it the other way around?
27. Posted by Scrapiron | September 8, 2007 6:15 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 18:15
28. Posted by HughS | September 8, 2007 6:17 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
secret-double probation.
That's double secret probation, Wermer wannabe.
28. Posted by HughS | September 8, 2007 6:17 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 18:17
29. Posted by HughS | September 8, 2007 6:21 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Scrapiron
Do the DNC talking heads use Osama's talking points of is it the other way around?
I think they go both ways...
29. Posted by HughS | September 8, 2007 6:21 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 18:21
30. Posted by Semanticleo | September 8, 2007 6:22 PM | Score: -6 (6 votes cast)
"That's double secret probation, Wermer wannabe."
I hope you're not trying to build the courage to ask me for a date. Just a stalker? OK.
30. Posted by Semanticleo | September 8, 2007 6:22 PM |
Score: -6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 18:22
31. Posted by marc | September 8, 2007 6:25 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
senmanticleo:
Neither I, or you or the talking parrots have any idea, because that is a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY, and must remain on secret-double probation. But it really doesn't matter, to you folks, how they got the information, does it?
Oh... look he's hiding behind the veil of secrecy! You're an absolute genus! (not)
Sorry guy, you making a (educated?) guess as to how they were intercepted wouldn't harm "NATIONAL SECURITY" one wit. (unless you care to admit your a member of the outfit that did the intercept)
What it does do is give you a handy excuse to NOT offer an answer.
ASSHAT
31. Posted by marc | September 8, 2007 6:25 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 18:25
32. Posted by Semanticleo | September 8, 2007 6:28 PM | Score: -7 (7 votes cast)
"guess as to how they were intercepted wouldn't harm "NATIONAL SECURITY""
Just the fact that the terrorists KNOW we're listening places the program in jeopardy. Who leaked that to Reuters? Hang him from the yardarm
32. Posted by Semanticleo | September 8, 2007 6:28 PM |
Score: -7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 18:28
33. Posted by HughS | September 8, 2007 6:28 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Semanticleo
When a troll has a history of being tossed from several blogs they usually:
1) go back home
2) sharpen their polemic
3) become better informed
4) try to become the next Deb Frisch.
You've failed 1-3, and with every appearance look more like #4.
33. Posted by HughS | September 8, 2007 6:28 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 18:28
34. Posted by marc | September 8, 2007 6:31 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Jim.... oh jim, you still out there? Or are you still looking for that answer that tops semanticleo's in lunacy?
Anyway, since you brought out the "fight terror with good police work" canard, here is the end game in your idea.
a $2 billion dollar judgement against Iran for its part in the 1983 bombing of a Marine barracks in Lebanon.
Of course the fly in the ointment is the surviving victims and the relatives will never see a penny.
34. Posted by marc | September 8, 2007 6:31 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 18:31
35. Posted by marc | September 8, 2007 6:36 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
semanticleo:
Just the fact that the terrorists KNOW we're listening places the program in jeopardy. Who leaked that to Reuters? Hang him from the yardarm
So, then you agree the NYT leaking the NSA terror surveillance program and leaking the financial monitoring program harmed their use?
And your still avoiding the question.
35. Posted by marc | September 8, 2007 6:36 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 18:36
36. Posted by marc | September 8, 2007 6:51 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
NOTE this second Reuters report of the German bust. This version claims the intercepts were of a phone call from Pakistan not emails.
IF that is true, and we're talking Reuters so who the hell knows, it points directly at the NSA terrorist surveillance program.QUICK, semanticleo...call in the feds! I've compromised national security!
36. Posted by marc | September 8, 2007 6:51 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 18:51
37. Posted by HughS | September 8, 2007 6:53 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)